Actually, I don't believe he does. I think that Sandusky truly believes he did nothing wrong, and that he really is the victim here. I don't think he believes that he ever did anything to hurt those kids -- that what he did was totally okay, that he was actually helping them. He strikes me as someone who's seriously deluded. Watch the Costas interview. He never really denied he was attracted to kids -- it was his lawyer who actually said it.

In fact, I think a lot of pedophiles don't believe they're doing anything wrong. Some of them think that their relationships are reciprocal, and I think that's what Sandusky believes.

Either way, he'll go on thinking he's a victim. Oh well. Let him -- he'll have plenty of time to do so. Let him rot. (In fact, didn't he actually get 30-60 years? It's only after thirty that he'll be eligible for parole. And I hope they say, screw you.)

Actually, I don't believe he does. I think that Sandusky truly believes he did nothing wrong, and that he really is the victim here. I don't think he believes that he ever did anything to hurt those kids -- that what he did was totally okay, that he was actually helping them. He strikes me as someone who's seriously deluded. Watch the Costas interview. He never really denied he was attracted to kids -- it was his lawyer who actually said it.

In fact, I think a lot of pedophiles don't believe they're doing anything wrong. Some of them think that their relationships are reciprocal, and I think that's what Sandusky believes.

Either way, he'll go on thinking he's a victim. Oh well. Let him -- he'll have plenty of time to do so. Let him rot. (In fact, didn't he actually get 30-60 years? It's only after thirty that he'll be eligible for parole. And I hope they say, screw you.)

Actually, I don't believe he does. I think that Sandusky truly believes he did nothing wrong, and that he really is the victim here. I don't think he believes that he ever did anything to hurt those kids -- that what he did was totally okay, that he was actually helping them. He strikes me as someone who's seriously deluded. Watch the Costas interview. He never really denied he was attracted to kids -- it was his lawyer who actually said it.

In fact, I think a lot of pedophiles don't believe they're doing anything wrong. Some of them think that their relationships are reciprocal, and I think that's what Sandusky believes.

Or he thinks he's not responsible because in his mind "the other guy" took over and did it, like a split personality or something. "It's not my fault, it was The Zodiac." Which is the kind of thing you sometimes hear from people who have no concept of self-control.

Or he thinks he's not responsible because in his mind "the other guy" took over and did it, like a split personality or something. "It's not my fault, it was The Zodiac." Which is the kind of thing you sometimes hear from people who have no concept of self-control.

Well if he can't stop himself from harming others, that's all the more reason to have him locked up, isn't it?

Actually, I don't believe he does. I think that Sandusky truly believes he did nothing wrong, and that he really is the victim here. I don't think he believes that he ever did anything to hurt those kids -- that what he did was totally okay, that he was actually helping them. He strikes me as someone who's seriously deluded. Watch the Costas interview. He never really denied he was attracted to kids -- it was his lawyer who actually said it.

In fact, I think a lot of pedophiles don't believe they're doing anything wrong. Some of them think that their relationships are reciprocal, and I think that's what Sandusky believes.

Either way, he'll go on thinking he's a victim. Oh well. Let him -- he'll have plenty of time to do so. Let him rot. (In fact, didn't he actually get 30-60 years? It's only after thirty that he'll be eligible for parole. And I hope they say, screw you.)

I interact with a lot of priests who've dealt far too much with abusive priests and other convicted sex offenders. I also interact with psychiatrists who deal in their treatment. I've also dated girls whose fathers (both biological and adoptive) were sexually abusive. It's something that I'm far too familiar with. That said, one of the nearly universal motifs is that the offenders have a very strong victim mentality - they blame it on anyone but themselves. I've known reformed pedophiles, and those who actually changed as a result of their punishment and correction did so because they blamed themselves for their actions, and not others. Someone like Sandusky is probably almost guaranteed to reoffend if he ever has the chance.

Going by what is right and wrong, moral and immoral, and those types of things - yes, Penn State earned the sanctions they got.

The crimes in question were committed by a tiny handful of people at most, and the sexual crimes were committed by all of one person. Thus, the vast majority of the Penn State community, who had no complicity in the illegal acts whatsoever, "earned" nothing. It may be popular in certain circles to punish the innocent for the crimes of the guilty, but that doesn't make it right or moral to do so. It is the exact opposite.

The crimes in question were committed by a tiny handful of people at most, and the sexual crimes were committed by all of one person. Thus, the vast majority of the Penn State community, who had no complicity in the illegal acts whatsoever, "earned" nothing.

That's why the vast majority of the community didn't get any punishment. The institution called Penn State University did, because it was the organization that did something wrong. Where is the problem?

"The organization" comprises many more people than the five or so individuals who were at fault. To say that "the organization" did something wrong blames everyone else for the wrongdoing of a small handful of people.